$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision: 27.03.2026 % LPA 153/2026 SHANABHOGA M B .....Appellant Through: Mr. Shivam Jasra and Mr. Kartik Jasra, Mr. Nakul Khanna, Ms.

Shivangi Tripathi, Advs.

versus AGRICULTURAL AND PROCESSED FOOD PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (APEDA)

& ORS.

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. for R-1 Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Advs. for R-3 CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. (ORAL)

CM APPL. 18443/2026 (for delay)

1. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the averments made in the instant application, the application is allowed and delay of 2 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

LPA 153/2026

1. This intra-court appeal has been instituted challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C)

18245/2025 has been dismissed.

2. At this juncture, we may note that the appellant had instituted the underlying writ petition assailing the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent no.1-Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (which is an Authority created by an Act of the Parliament) pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.06.2025 for appointment to the post of Assistant General Manager (Agriculture).

3. The main plank of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as stipulated in the advertisement, the qualifying marks to be obtained in written test for shortlisting of candidates for interview was 60% for un- reserved category candidates and though the appellant secured 61.75% marks in the written examination which is well above the threshold, he was not called for interview. He has further argued that as a matter of fact the respondents, after the result of the written examination was declared called candidates only 5 times the number of vacancies which stipulation was not there in advertisement and therefore, the respondents have changed the rule of the game after the game had begun and accordingly, the recruitment process adopted by the respondent is vitiated.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Awanish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.1has argued that it was well within the power and authority of the respondent no.1 to have fixed a criteria to shortlist the candidates who were called for appearing in the interview and accordingly, for administrative reasons, as the number of candidates who qualified in the written examination, was large, it was decided that the number of candidates that would be called for appearing in the interview examination shall be five times the number of vacancies. It is in this background that it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that there were 5 vacancies against the post in question and accordingly, 25 candidates who had secured over and above the benchmark of 65% in the written examination were subjected to interview.

5. He has further argued that it is not the case of the appellant that any candidate having secured less marks than him belonging to the un-reserved category was permitted to participate in the interview. It is also stated on behalf of the respondent no.1 that the last candidate belonging to the un- reserved category, who was permitted to participate in the interview for the post in question had secured 63.5% marks in the written examination whereas the appellant had secured 61.75% marks in the written examination which was much below the marks obtained by the last candidate who was subjected to interview.

6. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that admittedly, the number of vacancies against the post in question were 5 and only 40 candidates had secured the benchmark of 60% in the written examination so far as the un-reserved category is concerned, and if the respondent no.1 could interview 25 candidates,